AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Y. Jinita, learned counsel for the petitioner.
[2] The petitioner is a registered partnership firm doing in the business of transmission and construction.
[3] By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Managing Director, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) mainly on the ground that as per clause 2.5.2 of NIT, the Minimum Average Annual Turnover (MAAT) for the last 5 (five) years shall be at least 80% of the estimated cost of tender/NIT value.
[4] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that in two earlier NITs dated 08.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 issued by the same authority, in para 2.5.2, the MAAT value was only 30% of the estimated tender cost. It is submitted that due to sudden increased in the MAAT value from 30% to 80%, the petitioner could not submit his bid with respect to NIT dated 14.11.2025. However, it is clarified that the petitioner applied in two NITs dated 08.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 as the MAAT value was only 30%.
[5] The petitioner is challenging the sudden increase in the MAAT from 30% to 80% as the same is arbitrary and without any logic. It is also submitted that the date of opening of techno-commercial bid was fixed on 15.02.2025 and date of opening of financial bid on 19.12.2025. It is prayed that if the technical and financial bid are not completed yet, status quo as on date may be maintained till the next date.
[6] Issue notice.
[7] Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Hence, service is complete on all the respondents.
[8] Learned G.A. submits that petitioner has not impleaded other bidders and approached this court at a belated stage and no interim order may be passed. However, she submits that she may be given some time to take instruction as to whether the techno-commercial and financial bid have been completed or not.
[9] List this case on 16.02.2026 for taking instruction.
[10] It is clarified that even though there is delay in approaching the Court, if the process for techno-commercial and financial bid are not completed and work order is not issued, status quo as on date be maintained till the next date.
[11] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to make necessary correction typographical mistake in the name of the petitioner in page 2 & 13 of the writ petition in place of “Khagembam” as “Khagemba”.
[12] The oral prayer is allowed.
[13] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for all the parties in the course of the day through whatsapp or any available mode.